My God, a stunning thing happened.

  • Thread starter Thread starter jeff0633
  • Start date Start date
I'm getting some great results out of my loft room over garage (about 480 sq. ft) and the angled ceiling produces powerful early reflections for drum recording. Good early reflections are desirable, much of the time the rest can be made up with good digital reverb. Early reflections cannot be easily simulated.

It cannot be stated enough how important the room is to the sound, especially when doing drums and other multiple mic'd / distant mic'd sources.

War
 
As a recording enthusiast, I understand the road to great sound, but just an evil reminder: most listeners don't give a rat's ass as to the perfect highs, lows, and mids in a song -- or the room it was recorded in...they just want a good song.

An illuminate to my age: I remember buying "Hey Jude" as a 45, after hearing it on my family's single car speaker, then listening to it over, and over, and over, on a portable record player with a built-in speaker. It was the song that made me dream as a 10-year-old, not the recording techniques or room it was recorded in.

That said, being an appreciater of good sound, I, too, strive for the best sounds, but acknowledge that it's just me that's anal about it. My wife can't tell the difference between my C1, T3, or AEA R84...

It's the song -- not even really the singer or band...or mike or room.

Strive for the real goal, and don't think a room or mike or pre is going to make a song a memorable song or million seller. Focus on the art and simply capture it on tape or hard drive. (The quality of the teenage son's recording might knock our socks off, but is it a song people want to hear on the radio...or our iPods?).

After rereading my own above, though, it does raise the question of what each of us is trying to do. Are we looking for a hit song, or are we looking for great sound -- or both? You can have a hit song without great sound...as well as having a great sound with a song that sucks. What's more important to you? To me, it's having a song people can hum and remember...isnt' that what music is all about?
 
Of course, the strength of the material goes without saying. But this is a home RECORDING forum, and we are all striving to make the best RECORDINGS we can. And that starts with the means of capturing the performance.

There are those here who write songs. There are those who arrange them, and there are those who record them. Some do more than one of the above, but the common thread here remains the RECORDING of those songs.

I agree with War et al here, the room is a powerful factor in the sound, and one that is most often overlooked. I know I initially overlooked it, and learnt REAL fast.
 
I'll agree

The powerful experience I had has changed my outlook completely. The room IS one of the most important things for a good sound. The mic pres do a certain thing. They (and the mic) are responsible for the QUALITY of the actual signal, but that signal has to have a canvas, and that canvas is the room itself.

I have heard so many pros here talk about the importance of rooms, and I blew it off as being like my mom telling me to wear clean underwear because I might end up in an accident. I thought they were just spouting off meaningless stuff that only sounded good to say.

I'm telling you, when I walked into that room, I experienced the same FEELING that I get when listening to a pro recording. I knew INSTANTLY that I was hearing and feeling what I had been searching for. So, I must disagree about the song being the most important thing. The song, whether good or bad, can still be recorded good. You can have a great recording of someone puking. The sound of puking sounds bad, but you would still be able to hear that it is a pristine recording done in a wonderful space. Listen to the Hollywood effects cd's and tell me those are not recorded wonderfully, but there are no "songs" there.

No, the revelation was INSTANT. YOU CANNOT FAKE IT. That bed, that silent backdrop where each frequency has an equal chance to shine comes from that SPACE (or canvas) below the signals.

The sound recorded in a great room seems to come out of nowhere when you listen in headphones. Like you can walk around it inside your head. It's as if it magically appears because the bed (the room) is so opposite from the signals. The canvas (room) sucks all the other noises and bad frequencies from INTERFERING with the pristine signal. The pre and mic do something totally different. they change the ACTUAL signal itself, making it clear and detailed, but I see now that you cannot FAKE that canvas BEHIND the signals, which is what the signals rest on. The room is the bed, the canvas, and the better it does it's job, the more difference between the signal and the beautiful silence behind it.

I see it clearly now. YOU CANNOT FAKE HAVING THAT canvas. It's got to be there in order for the actual signal to STAND OUT FROM IT. The signal sounds 3 dimensional and pristine IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. This has nothing to do with the preamp. The preamp and mic effect THE ACTUAL SIGNAL ITSELF. The room is what PRESENTS THE SIGNAL to the listener The room is the PLATE that the signal (food) is on. The lack of that plate, or canvas cannot be overcome. There will be something missing that cannot be made up for.

Now I understand what I have been missing all this time. Now I understand that the pros weren't just saying this shit just because it sounds good. I remember years ago when I first started reading the rec.audio.pro group that there were a couple guys having a debate about he rooms they were using, and I remember thinking to myself, "who the hell cares, the space you are recording in doesn't matter" Then I would sit and listen to great recordings like Dark Side of the moon and ask myself, why can't I get that beatiful clarity. Listening to that record on headphones is a religious experience. I would sit and wonder how, how they could make that sound of the guitars so pristine, so clear, and make it stand out from whatever was behind it. I now realize that it wasn't just the great mics and preamps, but it was how those signals were PRESENTED. It was about what wasn't there as much as what was there. Am I making sense?

The canvas was the awesome silence behind the signals, letting the signals be revealed in all there glory. The room (canvas) sucked everything away that might interfere with the beauty and delicate nature of the signal. The mics and preamps made the actual signal itself sound sweet, delicate, detailed, but now I realize that the room has to allow that beautiful mic and preamp signal to rest on a silent canvas, a canvas that takes all the intereference away from that backgroud.

Yes, I have learned that the room PRESENTS the beatiful signals to the listener. It can't be faked. I would consider the two being totally seperate as entities. The canvas is 50 percent of the beauty. 50 percent is the signal and all that goes into it, and then 50 percent is how it's presented. If you have a suck-ass room, then all the great pres and mics in hell can't present the signal in a pristine environment. The two are opposites in many ways. The room is an anti signal, allowing only certain signals to come to life (your signals made by the instrument, mic, pre, engineer) It stops any other interference. It's half of everything. The signal is one part, and the space around it is the other. The space ALLOWING that signal to come to life while giving it the silent backdrop to be heard and tasted.

I now think of it in this way. Imagine a room of a 100 people. Your signal is one of the hundred voices. All the 100 people are softly chattering, and your signal, (one of the voices) is louder than the rest, and you want to hear that signal above the other softly chattering voices. It won't matter how beautiful your actual voice is if part of it is being swallowed up by the other 99 soft voices.

Your signal is clear, sweet (mic and pre, engineer, musician instrument), but in order to hear that beauty you must stop the other whispering voices. You cannot present your signal (no matter how pretty and detailed the mic and pre make it), without giving it the silence in which to be appreciated. The good room silences all the other voices, and now you can hear and enjoy the delicate signal that the mic and pre and all the other components make.

The signal is half, what it's presented on is the other half. What it's presented on is just as important as what's presented.

Sorry for the long reply, but you can see how this experince has effected me (and also made me depressed as hell). The pros were right in harping on the room, but I thought they were just going on about nothing. Incredible.

Jeff




fraserhutch said:
Of course, the strength of the material goes without saying. But this is a home RECORDING forum, and we are all striving to make the best RECORDINGS we can. And that starts with the means of capturing the performance.

There are those here who write songs. There are those who arrange them, and there are those who record them. Some do more than one of the above, but the common thread here remains the RECORDING of those songs.

I agree with War et al here, the room is a powerful factor in the sound, and one that is most often overlooked. I know I initially overlooked it, and learnt REAL fast.
 
i have recently thought long about this very concept and agree completely. this thread should get moved to the studio forum though........ most of the old school studios had crap compared to alot of the gear we now have....and listen to the results......far surpassing anything i have ever recorded....all of my recordings seem boxey and lacking that "air" , i think that is shit room....i have thought about this long and hard. and I dare say that you could record a beautiful recording with an sm57 and a a behringer mixer if the room sounded good..... seriously the tech we have now..... is fantastic ...... we need to stop this thinking about how maybe that next step up from an Art to a brick or whatever ( not saying it isnt worth obviously it is ) and start listening to how the sound in the room is..... seems simple enough but it is easier to blame " low tech gear" ( that is still higher quality than alot the greats were recorded on) than to take the time to fix a room and have an acoustically pleasant environment... I would like to see more threads regarding the treatment of the tracking room.... seems that everything is always about the console/ mixing area...




Just my 2 cents. ( or 3 hell i've been drinking al day)



randy
 
The most important thing about a good-sounding room is that it will open up more mic'ing options.

Room mics become an asset rather than a liability. Omni-directional mics become a real possibility. You don't always have to close-mic everything ... you can actually back a mic up a few more feet and not have to worry about it sounding crappy. And that's huge right there. People tend to close mic things far too much in bad rooms ... and some sounds just need a little more space to develop. Stereo mic'ing becomes much more effective.

So many workarounds and compromizes you normally make due to the recording environment become a non-factor. Just so many more options available ... I can't stress it enough.
 
So, for those of us with small spare bedroom studios...what do we do? My room is 11x11 with an 8' ceiling. I've invested a few hundred dollars in Auralex and Foambymail bass traps and wall panels. Standing waves are still an issue and you can hear them in the recording. Sometimes it sounds like there is a phase shifter pedal hooked in line...and that's while recording acoustic guitar. Is there any hope? I'm feeling doomed.
 
Here is a little lesson I learned recording in a small untreated room. There are these things call nulls and nodes. Well, if you're not careful you can end up setting your mic in one of these and then sit back and wonder why the mic everyone is raving about sounds like crap.

Bass traps, the small studio owner's friend.

TKingen, it could be as simple as the placement of your traps, absorbers and diffusors. There is a great article in EM this month which provides some good starting points for placement.
 
Middleman said:
Here is a little lesson I learned recording in a small untreated room. There are these things call nulls and nodes. Well, if you're not careful you can end up setting your mic in one of these and then sit back and wonder why the mic everyone is raving about sounds like crap.

Bass traps, the small studio owner's friend.

TKingen, it could be as simple as the placement of your traps, absorbers and diffusors. There is a great article in EM this month which provides some good starting points for placement.

Middleman,

You may be right. I thought the bass traps were placed intelligently, but maybe not. I assume EM means Electronic Musician...I'll definitely check it out. It would be great to achieve some improvement without dropping more dollars!

Terry
 
Jeff,
Great thread, congratulations and condolances on your epiphany. The thing that gets lost in the process of becoming a gear slut is that gear is great, but it's the sound source that matters the most. Great recordings are made when sufficiant equipment captures great sounds, not when great gear records mediocre sound. And as you witnessed in dramatic fashion, the sound of the room is inseperable from the sound of the instrument. Most of us home recordists are resigned to working against this fact instead of with it. I doubt that the room was completely anechoic though, as that is not a particularly great sound, as anyone who's ever been in a true anechoic chamber can tell you. I'm sure what the room did have was a carefully controlled r/t time that was consistant across the audio spectrum, with no nodes, etc. I know only the basics of what is a very deep subject, but your thread has inspired me to take up this subject as my next focal point in improving my recording quality.
Best regards,
RD
 
Robert D said:
Great recordings are made when sufficiant equipment captures great sounds, not when great gear records mediocre sound.


Abso -- slutely. Truer words are rarely spoken around these parts.
 
I have my studio in my basement. A 13x22 room split into a console room and recording room. I am not going to get great sound out of the room. It is never going to happen. The question is should I go with a room that is as 'dead' as I can make it, or should I let it breathe knowing that I am not going to be able to let the proper frequencies resonate while making the improper frequencies go away? Which is better for a person with a limited space?

:confused: :confused:
 
Thanks for the condolences.

Thanks for the condolences. I have not been able to get over that room still, and I haven't recorded anything serious since. I just can't seem to force myself to do it. Inside, i feel like there is no use. I have been studying the home made broad band absorbers, and I am about to spend $350 dollars and make some of my own. After hearing that room, I know now why I haven't been able to get *that sound*. It was the room all along, and it all ties together.

Here goes a ton more money but at least now I know what I was missing.

Jeff




Robert D said:
Jeff,
Great thread, congratulations and condolances on your epiphany. The thing that gets lost in the process of becoming a gear slut is that gear is great, but it's the sound source that matters the most. Great recordings are made when sufficiant equipment captures great sounds, not when great gear records mediocre sound. And as you witnessed in dramatic fashion, the sound of the room is inseperable from the sound of the instrument. Most of us home recordists are resigned to working against this fact instead of with it. I doubt that the room was completely anechoic though, as that is not a particularly great sound, as anyone who's ever been in a true anechoic chamber can tell you. I'm sure what the room did have was a carefully controlled r/t time that was consistant across the audio spectrum, with no nodes, etc. I know only the basics of what is a very deep subject, but your thread has inspired me to take up this subject as my next focal point in improving my recording quality.
Best regards,
RD
 
I don't know how old you are but houses are pretty cheap in the south. Find a cool old victorian to rent and you will have several great rooms to choose from.
 
Good luck on your acoustic treatment experience. I know what you mean about not being able to record. Every once in a while I discover some lacking part of the recording experience and go non-musical until I can buy the gear/whatever I need. Then I get pumped again.

luapleba, there is no answer to your questions, every room is different. I used to have this warbling sound from my acoustic guitar that showed up in my recordings. I found out this is the effect parallel walls have on sound. I used a mirror, found the first point of contact for sound on the walls to the left and right of my speakers, ceiling too, and put auralex there. Guitar warblling went away. This is just one thing you can try. (When you can see your speaker's cones in the mirror, this is the first point of contact)
 
luapleba said:
I have my studio in my basement. A 13x22 room split into a console room and recording room. I am not going to get great sound out of the room. It is never going to happen. The question is should I go with a room that is as 'dead' as I can make it, or should I let it breathe knowing that I am not going to be able to let the proper frequencies resonate while making the improper frequencies go away? Which is better for a person with a limited space?

I'm sure there are various ways to approach your problem that could work, but I'd go with deadening the space as much as you can, then selectively "livening" it up again. I'm a double bassist, and I recently recorded a trio CD where I was placed in the *very* dead vocal booth. I was worried about this until I heard the playback, where I discovered that the sound was to die for - no weird frequencies to EQ, no wolf tones...just the sound of my instrument. I know I'll be working on my music room some more to deaden it a bit after this experience.

If you'd like to hear examples of what I'm talking about, go to the soundclips page of my site, then compare the Todd Hildreth Trio stuff (the vocal booth) with any of the duo stuff (my open music room). The duo stuff is okay, but you can hear all of the room weirdness in the bass sound. More rock wool panels for me!
 
jeff0633 said:
I just can't seem to force myself to do it. Inside, i feel like there is no use.
This was my experience following using proper live spaces for the first time. It's tough knowing you're stuck with it ... my room sounds bad, I can hear it, I do what I can with thick blankets, mattresses etc, but basically I need a pile of rockwool about four inches from the walls, and some foam for the high end stuff. But where to put it? I sleep, work, rest, play and record in this room. I don't have any spare space!!!

So tough convincing yourself it's not optional.

The flip side is that some great recordings have been made in homes ... just not many of the 'hi-fi' ones ;)
 
jeff0633 said:
Thanks for the condolences. I have not been able to get over that room still, and I haven't recorded anything serious since. I just can't seem to force myself to do it. Inside, i feel like there is no use. I have been studying the home made broad band absorbers, and I am about to spend $350 dollars and make some of my own. After hearing that room, I know now why I haven't been able to get *that sound*. It was the room all along, and it all ties together.

Here goes a ton more money but at least now I know what I was missing.

Jeff


Hello Jeff,

Many years ago I had the same epiphany after taking working in a professional studio designed by Russ Berger. As cool as the SSL and stuff was, the real money had been spent on the rooms in the facility. But it is worth bearing in mind that the recording room shouldn't matter if you learn to be creative enough. There is a series of DVDs called "Ultimate Albums" that covers the background of the most influential recordings made. There is one on Def Leppard's "Hysteria" and where they are talking to Phil Collen (the guitarist) about recording the guitars, he says all guitars were done with a Rockman (the Pod headphone amp of its day). The only live tracks are vocals and cymbals. It should be noted that "Hysteria" sold around 13 million copies or so. Obviously the mix space was high-end, but Phil clearly states tracking was done in a jingle studio with only a vocal booth. He talks at length about the gear versus the person using it. You might want to find the DVD as it will inspire you in your situation. Hell, the DVD is cool in that they play the cassette demos of the album songs before Mutt Lange restructured things. The songs sound like any other garage band recording a rehearsal.
 
Mark E DeSade said:
Hello Jeff,

>snip

There is a series of DVDs called "Ultimate Albums" that covers the background of the most influential recordings made.

>end snip

Actually that should have been "Classic Albums" and the publisher is Eaglevision. The bonus tracks section features most of the commentary and demo listening. The multitrack of the real recordings as Joe Elliot and Phil Collen comment on the production and why certain decisions were made to individual tracks is highly educational for anyone. A great chance to hear stripped and finished parts and learn about decision-making on a project that sold millions.
 
Back
Top